Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wasson, 615 N.W.2d 316.

56 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Keevin Lashawn Hinton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Keevin Lashawn Hinton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
failed to provide sufficient facts that would justify a no-knock entry.” 3 To justify a no-knock entry, “police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Wilson v. Arkansas , 514 U.S. 927, 931 -34, 115 S. Ct. 1914, 1916-18 (1995)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
[an] officer must be able to point to something that objectively supports the suspicion at issue.” d 316, 320 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
78 (Minn. App. 2002); see Garza v. State , (“[A] generalized showing of drug trafficking is not sufficient justification for an unannounced entry because evidence of drug trafficking does not, ipso facto, equate to a conclusion that an announced entry would be dangerous or futile, or that it would result in the destruction of evidence.”); State v. Wasson, 12 (“[B]oilerplate language in the search warrant affidavit does not satisfy the requirement for a sh owing, particular to the search at issue
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
251 (Minn. App. 1999) (“A search warrant that does not expressly allow a search of persons provides only the limited authority to detain, not search, unarmed individuals present during the execution of the warrant.”), aff’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
(“[Reasonable suspicion requires’ something more than an unarticulated hunch, [and] that the officer must be able to point to something that objectively supports the suspicion at issue.’” ()).
State of Minnesota v. Carla Camille Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Carla Camille Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 316, 320 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota v. Stuart Donald Luhm 880 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stuart Donald Luhm 880 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We have said that reasonable suspicion requires “something more than an unarticulated hunch, and that the officer must be able to point to something that objectively supports the suspicion at issue.”
State of Minnesota v. Luis Rodolfo Rojas-Santos Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Luis Rodolfo Rojas-Santos Minn. Ct. App. 2015
322-23 (Minn. 2000) (police requested and received permission to execute a no-knock, nighttime search warrant in the interest of officer safety where weapons had been found during a previous search of the same residence).
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
791 n. 1 (Minn.1999); , 864 n. 4 (Minn.1991); , 701 n. 1 (Minn.1990); , 269 n. 2 (Minn.1985); , 929 n. 7 (Minn.2006) (resolving
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Perry Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Perry Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting a blanket exception to the announcement requirement in felony drug cases was unconstitutional (citing Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 117 S. Ct. 1416 (1997)).
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Devon Griffen Seivers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Devon Griffen Seivers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Janice Marie Cortes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Janice Marie Cortes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
rant.” The requirement that the police knock and announce their presence when executing a warrant serves the purpose of “preventing the unnecessary destruction of property and mistaken entry into the wrong premises, 8 protecting against unnecessary shock and embarrassment, and decreasing the potential for a violent response.” -20 (Minn. 2000).
State v. Baumann 759 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Baumann 759 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Anderson 733 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 2007
State v. Anderson 733 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 2007
Reasonable suspicion is more than “an unarticulated hunch.”
State v. Davis 732 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2007
State v. Davis 732 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2007
We have said that reasonable suspicion requires “something more than an unarticulated hunch, [and] that the officer must be able to point to something that objectively supports the suspicion at issue.”
State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
The Minnesota Supreme Court has defined reasonable suspicion as something more than an unarticulated hunch; rather, “the officer must be able to point to something that objectively supports the suspicion at issue.”
State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
We have said that reasonable suspicion requires “something more than an unartic-ulated hunch, that the officer must be able to point to something that objectively supports the suspicion at issue.”
State v. Amundson 712 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Amundson 712 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Goodwin 686 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Goodwin 686 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. KNAEBLE 652 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. KNAEBLE 652 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
requires a result different from Dendy .
State v. Botelho 638 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Botelho 638 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
ission contradicts the officer’s application statement that “people frequenting the address hav[e] dangerous weapon criminal histories as well as histories reflective of obstructing the legal process.” “Where the material facts are not in dispute, this court independently reviews whether a no-knock entry was justified.” (), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Garza v. State 632 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2001
Garza v. State 632 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2001
The court of appeals reversed, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Richards and our decision in State v. Was *637 son